arXiv:2608. 19207v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Production deployments of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) increasingly rely on system messages to govern model behavior.
arXiv:2608. 19208v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are frequently exposed to auxiliary textual context, the impact of which on visually grounded tasks remains underexplored.
Video-IFBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate how well multimodal large language models (MLLMs) follow user-specified instructions in video understanding tasks. It introduces an instruction taxonomy with four templates—single-task, multi-task, selection, and nested—covering 32 task types and 39 constraint categories that span semantic and format requirements. The benchmark was built using a semi-automatic pipeline that combines MLLMs, programmatic processing, and human verification, producing 1.5K samples, and a large-scale evaluation of over 20 recent MLLMs shows that instruction following remains difficult, especially for complex constraints and conditional structures.
Multimodal large language models have made rapid progress in video understanding, yet existing benchmarks largely rely on simple prompts and provide limited evidence about whether models can satisfy explicit output constraints. We introduce VCIFBench, a benchmark for evaluating complex instruction following in video understanding.
arXiv:2606.04588v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multimodal large language models have made rapid progress in video understanding, yet existing benchmarks largely rely on simple prompts and provid...
arXiv:2507. 19634v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in large language models have laid the foundation for multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), which unify text, speech, and vision within a single framework.
arXiv:2608. 11907v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Vision-Language Models increasingly aim to integrate visual generation and understanding within a single parameter space, evaluating such structural unification in a cohesive manner remains a critical challenge.
CCTU is a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their ability to use tools under complex constraints. It includes 200 test cases that average seven constraint types and 4,700‑token prompts, covering resource, behavior, toolset, and response dimensions. An executable validation module performs step‑level checks, and nine state‑of‑the‑art LLMs were tested, revealing that none exceed a 20% task completion rate when strict constraints are enforced, with frequent violations and limited self‑refinement.
arXiv:2606. 22437v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We conduct a systematic study of 18 widely used vision-language benchmarks and identify three major issues: 1) many items do not rely on visual cues and therefore fail to effectively measure multimodal understanding; 2) many items are already close to performance saturation for current LVLMs, which limits their discriminative power; 3) a small number of anomalous items affect the reliability of evaluation results.
arXiv:2606. 26348v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process diverse inputs, e.
arXiv:2608. 12426v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed in settings that require simultaneous adherence to multiple explicit constraints - reasoning structure, safety boundaries, output schemas.
As Large Vision-Language Models increasingly aim to integrate visual generation and understanding within a single parameter space, evaluating such structural unification in a cohesive manner remains a critical challenge. Current evaluation protocols predominantly treat generative and discriminative capabilities as separate tasks, leaving a gap in system-level evaluation for unified multimodal models (UMMs).
The paper investigates how multimodal large language models (MLLMs) handle conflicting evidence presented in text, image, or both forms. Across 13 MLLMs and two datasets, the authors find that models are not robust to knowledge conflict: they tend to accept contradictory image evidence more readily than contradictory text, and when both modalities conflict the preference is arbitrary, depending on input order, model, and dataset. The instability degrades multimodal retrieval-augmented generation and can be exploited by adversarial attacks, while simple mitigation techniques such as prompting, steering, and direct preference optimization largely fail, with supervised fine‑tuning offering only moderate improvement.